Thanks for commenting. It's funny how different people can look at the same situation and reach entirely different conclusions, isn't it? One person sees the disrepair as proof that the district is a terrible steward that can't be trusted with more money. Another person sees the disrepair as proof that our schools are long overdue for capital investment.

Speaking personally, I do think the schools are long overdue for a capital bond (or rather, a series of manageable bonds over several decades). However, I do think it's important to note that if the district gets careless again with M&O spending, and if it fails to consistently fund small capital projects from the general fund, then the district will *never* catch up on its facilities backlog. That concerns me because of the known health & safety risks of working and learning in compromised buildings.

By the way, I'm curious what folks think about the new proposed rate of $1 to $1.10 per $1,000 of assessed value, which is about half the rate of the bond that voters narrowly rejected last May.

Hi all.
Nathan raises a good point that the crisis is greatest among boys and students and color. Yet girls and white students drop out by the hundreds, too. So we can't single out any one demographic group for the abysmal statistics. We also can't pretend that the problem is specific to Portland (though the district's size and lower-than-average performance trigger extra attention). The problem belongs to everyone. Keep the ideas and constructive suggestions coming.
Thanks much,
Susan, editorial board

Hi folks, Susan here. Happy Father's Day to all of the dads and grandpas out there. Below are a few emails and voice mails that came directly to me this morning.

But first, a quick comment to redu -- I agree that parents should limit air travel for babies. But when the grandfolks live in other states (and you want your kids to have a relationship with them), you gotta do what you gotta do....

1. A reader named Ahmawake sent this email: "My husband is a pilot and I am a flight attendant so, prior to the birth of our now 6-year-old son, we were certain we'd be immune to this sort of scene. How wrong we were! He's a great flier now and it's his 2 year old brother who causes us angst. We are currently in Hawaii on vacation. About half way over I made the mistake of thinking "Wow! This is actually going well.". Almost immediately my 2 year old stood up in his seat and repeatedly screeched at the top of his lungs, then he threw up ALL OVER me! My children have certainly humbled me and made me far more sympathetic in my job! Happy Travels!"

2. A man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: "You seem like a pretty nice lady in a lot of respects, but your column just seems like of misplaced. It's father's day and all that, but with all the other issues that we have, to hear about your baby screaming? I mean, all babies do it."

3. A man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: "Boy I can identify with that. You know, they'll have one moment like that in their life, and the timing couldn't be worse. By the end of the three or four hour flight, everything smells, everyone's unhappy, and the baby fusses and fusses, and you get those death stares. ... All my kids and my grandkids have had moments when they had the meltdown, and it seems to never end until they went into unconsciousness. It is just unbelievable. If your child decides to act up, there's nothing you can do about it. Anyway, I am amused. Have a nice day."

4. A reader named Kendra wrote: "Your article, 'When the shrieking baby on Flight 281 is your own,' was the best gift to mothers everywhere (albeit it's Father's Day, but my husband did get donut holes and a mocha.) Thank you. We've been there and it stinks."

5. A reader named Jeff wrote, "Wonderful piece this morning on being "that" family. I always thought there was just one baby in the universe that showed up on every flight and at every wedding/funeral.....very happy to now know the family...."

6. A woman who didn't leave her name left this voice mail: "Thanks for sharing your story about your trip.We've been down that road. It's really hilarious ... Thanks for making us all laugh. Hopefully those people who give those mean stares will get some insight into what it's like to be a mom or dad with little kids. Hopefully they can remember that they were once in those shoes, most likely. Anyway, take care, and I hope your husband has a nice Father's Day."

Hi folks, happy Sunday. Susan here. Below are two voice mails I received this morning:

1. A man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: "Just read your feel-good piece about Rudy Crew. Just wanted to let you know that two years from now, he won't be here. He will have a fat severance check in his pocket and he'll gone on to somewhere else. Having Kitzhaber as a two-time loser picking anyone for the education system is like having Mickey Rooney pick you a wife. ... There's nothing wrong with the education system; we spend more money than almost everyone. Why don't you get rid of half the administrators and put the other half to work and clean out all of the nonsense and teach the kids. He's a joke and he'll be an embarrassment to Oregon, but then, that's how we run the place."

2. Another man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: He is upset by the speed of the Crew hiring and the lack of a public process: "That gives the public no chance for any input," he said.

Hi folks, Susan here. Happy Sunday. I hope most of you are out enjoying the sun. Below are two of the voice mails that were waiting for me this morning:

1. A man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: "Man, that's a sticky issue. It's like gambling. It's gonna be legal, it's gonna be big, it's just a matter of time. It's not good. You've got people working in the workplace, and driving, who are impaired. I tell ya, at my job, for 20 years, I had to undergo random alcohol and drug testing, because my job was so dangerous and they didn't want to be fooling with that. They took urine samples but then they started to take blood samples, a mouth swab, cut hair. ...They were really looking to see if we had anything on us. They said, 'If you don't like it, you're gone.' And I did it, because, in that kind of job, you were making $79,000 a year and working eight months of the year. You weren't going to argue if you had any brains at all. Anyway, it ain't good. I see it coming. Nice article."

2. Another man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: "Yeah, this article here about marijuana. I'm not sure how much it's contributing to the global drug trade. Most of the stuff grown here in Oregon is consumed locally. Maybe in Washington and Idaho, and some of California, but California has a lot already and so does Washington. Anyway, it IS sort of a backdoor way for people who don't really have crippling health things."

He continued: "As for me, I have a bad hip; I can barely walk most of the time. I have a bad back, too. I've been a patient almost from the beginning. I'll be honest: You pay your money and you go in and talk to the doctor for about five minutes, if that, and then they sign off. It could be done better. I'm a Kaiser patient and my Kaiser doctor won't sign the thing, so I'm kind of stuck."

He wrapped up: "I think the best thing would be to allow the growers to grow a certain amount for their patients, and anything more than that, they could turn over to the state-functioning dispensaries for sale for a price of anywhere from $100 to $200 an ounce. As far as the cost as growing, well, if you do it outside, it may or may not last you: Last year was a really crappy year and this year isn't looking much better. Inside, you're looking at wasting all the electricity. Anyway, if the feds crack down, if this guy Holton wants to crack down, it's just going to drive people further underground. I think state-licensed dispensaries just like state-licensed liquor store, are the way to go, and (expletive) to (expletive) with the federal government. ... Anyway, I don't think we need to have more enforcement in the heavy-handed boot on the ground form. And a lot of the medical marijuana folks actually do vote. Thanks."

Hi folks, Susan here. Happy Sunday. Below is an interesting comment that came directly to me. I'll also respond to a few of your comments.

1. A woman named Tiffany from SE Portland sent this email: "Our economy does force most parents to work rather than having the choice
to raise their kids full time. There is another choice: not to have children. ... As the mother of a toddler and stepmom of a teenager, I know how difficult,
stressful, and expensive it is to raise children. I also know that our system is unfair to the childless and childfree. Politicans rattle on about
the American family as though there were no single people among us. More common and subtle is the media, endlessly exulting about celebrity
pregnancies. Parents receive tax breaks while the childless and childfree are expected to cover for them at the office when a soccer game or flu
virus comes up. I'm not sure there's a practical solution to that, other than having all working parents neglect their kids. But at the very least
we could thank our unchilded fellow citizens for helping us out and offer them the equivalent of Family Leave to pursue what's important to *them.*

Tiffany continued: "We could, not just in public policy but in everyday life, show our support for people who aren't biological parents. In a significant way, they reduce overpopulation and environmental destruction. We should work toward more equality on all fronts, encouraging real reproductive choice, helping lower and middle income parents cope with child care expenses by closing the gap between the 1% and the 99%, and
being mindful of the childless and childfree."

2. To JackRobby: Thanks for your note. Good point about a disconnect between the diagnosis and the prescription. That may be because there *isn't* a magic bullet solution to the child-care problem.
I do think the day-care subsidies for lower-income working parents are absolutely critical to the well-being of children and families (especially as long as we expect parents to work rather than be on welfare). But what else should government do (if anything) to improve the affordability and quality of child care for all families? There are dozens of ideas out there. The big ones are hugely expensive, and the small ones would improve things only modestly. It's a real tangle.
In general, I think child care should remain primarily a private obligation. However, the systemic problems with child care *do* have negative impacts on families, workplaces and society. So we should keep looking at some of the no-cost and low-cost things the public and private sectors might do to help address the problem -- even if there is no Miracle Solution in sight.

3. To commenters caveman1313 and Dick: Thanks to both of you for writing. It's true that raising kids on one-income can be done, for some families. It's also true that a penny saved is a penny earned.... MOST of the time. HOWEVER, for families at all income levels, paying for child care (even at the current exorbitant rates) *IS* often cheaper than the alternative: dropping out the workforce, losing job skills, not saving for retirement or college, having to "start over" when returning to work, etc etc. The statistics back up the lifetime costs of dropping out. Having said that, having one parent stay home for a while -- or the long haul -- does make the most sense for many families, whether financially or emotionally or both. It really depends on the family .

Oldvanport-- thanks for your note. I wasn't the author of that editorial, though I do think it raised several good points. I wanted to highlight Kinsey's column, because he points out the problematic behavior on BOTH sides of the debate.

Hi folks, happy Sunday. Here's a sampler of some of the comments that came directly to me via voice mail or email. Though I am pleased with the debate, I'm even more pleased to be called "toots." (see comment no. 2.)

1. A man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: "I normally agree with you, but, you know, the whole idea behind the exchange thing, it's just going to be four or five guys out there, and they're going to collude much like the oil companies or baseball teams. It's not going to be cheaper. If you want to take care of the problem with health care in this country, we need to go to a European system. ... "

2. Another man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: "You know, if it weren't for federal mandates, toots, we'd be breathing leaded gas air still. Why don't you get off your idiocy and get a real job?"

3. A reader named George E. sent this email: "... Massachusetts does require an insurance mandate, and it seems to be working quite well. Other states have adopted the contraceptive mandate, also without serious problems or inflammatory rhetoric. Catholic officials in those states seem to have accommodated themselves to the mandate, presumably because they felt that the importance of contraception in women’s health, including the lowering
of abortions and reduction in poverty, was worth the small compromise in their thinking about family planning. (They may well have used the
age-old principle of “material cooperation” with sin to justify their position.)

George continues: "And other countries, whose health care systems are usually regarded as superior to ours (partly because of universal coverage), also have an insurance mandate, in their cases paid for with tax money. Your article explores the debate well enough, but I just can’t see how you come to the conclusion that the mandate can’t and shouldn’t win. .. I would hate to see you and Rick Santorum on the same side of the same debate arena."

4. A man named Chris F. left this voice mail: "I don't get your article. One of the things I don't get about this country is how any American woman would be a Roman Catholic and how any woman would be a Republican. This birth control contortion thing is all about keeping you guys down, and arbitraging your role as human beings. So, your point is like, big bad federal government's trying to do this. Well, maybe we should make people who are black ride in the back of the bus? I don't get it. ... The only way we can have insurance for everyone is if everyone pays, like a single payer system."

5. A reader named Steve left this email: “Good to have you back. But I do think next time you write about mandates, you need to acknowledge that without the mandate, we have to continue to allow insurers to discriminate against people with pre/existing conditions. One is the price of the other. Because if there was no mandate but there was a prohibition against discrimination, people would only buy insurance the day they got sick, and the insurers would quickly go bankrupt. I say this speaking solely for myself, not speaking for my employer. I haven't seen the RAND study, but I can't imagine it contradicts this basic point. That doesn't mean there aren't legit reasons to oppose the mandate; it just means you can't simultaneously support the preexisting conditions part.”

6. A reader named Ron sent this email: “I enjoyed your comments on this issue. You framed the issue very well. I do offer one comment for your consideration. I have had heart surgery and colon surgery. My insurance company assigned a nurse as part of their CCO process. I talk with them frequently and sometimes before i see the doctor. However, turnover of the nurses and lack of education have made the process one that offers little if any real help.are doing. However, they have nothing to offer. I seriously would never change my care based on what they have to say. I only mention this because as someone who has been in a CCO program for over ten years, I feel that people are offering this up as a solution when there are serious flaws in the existing CCO's.”

7. A reader named Bruce from NE Portland sent this email: “While mandates are a tricky issue, it's not like we don't already have them - driver's licenses, car insurance, social security, property taxes and more.When it comes to poll numbers, we see that majorities want national health care far more inclusive than what Obama was able to pass. Why we don't have what folks want can clearly be laid at the feet of a Republican campaign of lies largely unrestrained by a media confounded by the idea that lies are what it is employed to point out. The hypocrisy of the noisiest American Bishops on health care, women's rights and sex is beyond need for comment.”

Hi Gtom -- Comments can get caught in a spam filter -- most frequently when they are very long, lack paragraph breaks, or look to the software like a commercial pitch. These comments have to be manually approved. I'm sorry to spoil your conspiracy theory!

Oregongrown -- Our blog tool automatically holds back comments that are unusually long or that otherwise look to our spam software like spam. I have to go through these held-back comments and manually publish them. I do this as often as possible, but obviously I can't monitor it 24 hours a day. Also, sometimes there are so many withheld comments that some get overlooked for reasons that have nothing to do with censorship. You can see from our site that opinions of *all* kinds appear. Thanks for your comment.

Hi folks, happy Sunday. Below are a few of the voice mails that were waiting for me this morning.

1. A man who didn't leave this name left this voice mail: "Thanks for the article this morning. This city is out of control. They build separate roads for the 10 people who ride their bikes. I paid $2200 in property taxes this year for a little tiny SE Portland house, 900 square feet or something. And now they want more and more. Oh, it's only another hundred dollars, they say. ... My wife and I retire pretty soon and we're out of here. We're moving to a little city in Nevada that has good police and fire, the basics. It's absolutely out of control here."

2. A named Leland, who says he owns a steel business, left this voice mail: "I read your editorial today. I agree with you 100 percent. We have a mayor who is, he's just stupid, he's a nitwit. All he wants to do is spend money on things that are non-essential. Now we're running out of money. If anything you weren't tough enough on him. You're probably a nice lady, and you're probably not used to be tough enough. I wish the whole editorial would berate the mayor and the city council, who are so concerned about frills and extras and not about the fundamentals. We're losing ground in this city, because they are not into reality. ..."

3. A frequent caller named Dave left this voice mail: "Thank you Susan and good morning. Well, it's just like watching D.C. We've got too damn many progressives in City Hall. And our money's running out because of bike paths, and fancy bioswales, et cetera. Let's get back to the old conservative mode. Thanks for listening."

Lynne: ".... Imagine if you had no car and had to transport your kids to daycare on the bus.. "

You're right. Having two older cars, one of which is still pretty reliable, is NOT an actual capital-P problem -- not by itself, and certainly not relative to households with poor transportation options. Very good point. (In reference to the previous column, you're also right that parents with too-short family leaves, no paid sick time, poor family supports, inadequate child care, etc, are the ones who deserve the most public policy attention.) But RE this column, I still do think that the collective decision of households to hang onto their cars longer (whether because they can't afford a replacement, or because they're feeling risk-averse) is a sign of the times.

Hi folks, Susan here. Happy Thursday and thanks for writing. Below are a few of the comments that came directly to me today via email or voice mail:

1. A man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: "I'm still driving a clunker. Two hundred thousand miles on a GMC Safari van. I love that little baby. It's like driving a tin can, but it's been paid for forever and the insurance is nil. I take care of that little hon. You're right though, a lot of people aren't buying because who wants a car payment? Look at our economy! People are hurting. They don't have confidence, I sure don't. ..."

2. A reader named David G. sent this e-mail: "Good Morning Susan. I enjoyed your Oregonian article on aging autos! In our household, we turn our cars too, only every 10-15 years. They go from being cool (new) to uncool (old) then back to really cool (really old) :) (and I loved your reference to Tom Stanley millionaire next door-I know households who have had to let their homes go in short sales yet 'keep' up on the two car lease payments for 'halo' model automobiles!). .."

3. A reader named Katherine left this voice mail: "Try riding the bus system on the west side and you will find that it is not the best system and hasn't been for five years." (She went on to describe difficulties including slow routes and poor connectivity and said I was lucky to have a car, as she and many people do not.)

4. A man named Richard H left this voice mail: "I think it's interesting that when Henry Ford started building cars, he paid a high enough wage so that workers could afford to buy his product. It's funny how that has been lost and now workers can't afford to buy anything. Interesting comment on the times."

5. A reader named Stephen R. sent this email: "I read your editorial with amusement today. A few months ago, I was faced with a similar choice. I decided to swap my 2008 Ford Focus with my son, who was driving my old 1999 Mercury Grand Marquis. I was happy to have the old beast back, but noticed the steering was quite a bit looser than I remembered. " He went on to describe the thought process behind repair vs. replacement, and then concluded: "I thought about fixing it, but decided I didn't need the aggravation. My wife and I both have jobs. The $250 car payment for the new Mazda 3 is the least of our financial concerns. ..."

Stephen continues: "What really kills are the $3000 dental bills and the amazingly high car insurance bills (our son is 20, a student at PSU). The rising tuition bills. The outrageous prices for textbooks. Higher health insurance premiums. Higher office co-pays. Higher drug costs. $350 eye glasses. Contact Lens Higher airfare. Higher grocery bills. Higher gas. Seen in this context, the $250 going out the door every month is a pittance, and (hopefully) having a nice new car means I have one less thing to worry about. ...So... unless your supervisor just told you you're on the shortlist to be eliminated, I'd encourage you to get that clunker replaced before your front end goes out at 70 mph on the I-5. If that car isn't safe for your kids, it might not be safe for their mum either. Go get a nice new car."

6. A reader named Dave sent this e-mail: "Great column. I am about five years past when I would have replaced my current vehicle but continue to hold off. I got lucky though. My 88 year old mother-in-law had to give up her car keys and I picked up her 2001 Buick (with only 40,000 miles)."

Hi folks, Susan here again. Here is a sampler of some of the comments that came directly to me over the course of today:

1. An older woman who didn't leave her name left this voice mail: "First of all, every baby is a gift from God. Don't ever forget that. I could never leave a gift from God with some unknown babysitter who will abuse it, or some day care center who will abuse it all day, and not feed it, and leave it in a dirty diaper all day and probably hit it, like what you see on "60 Minutes." I could never leave my baby for a meeting? For a cup of coffee? For a job? That is the epitome of selfishness. You will miss so much of these children growing up. ... "

2. Another woman who didn't leave her name left this voice mail: "I read your column and I found it refreshing. To me, there are no shoulds for mothers about working vs. staying home and I'm happy to hear you are able to do both. To me that is what the woman's movement is all about: choices. Just wanted to weigh in. Thanks. Bye."

3. A man named Curtis B. from Portland send this e-mail: "I have no problems with working mothers. I question their incessant desire to be pregnant. There are presently 7 billion humans on a small & increasingly unsustainable planet. The last thing Portland needs is one more white infant. Adoption is the ultimate form of recycling. An adopted kid really needs an apparently stable & nourishing home like yours. But such a kid will have to wait, because you & so many others must first have the "experience" of pregnancy, usually more than once. To me, this has little to do with the desire to raise children. Instead, it suggests hubris & ego. Just one old grump's opinion. I have too many opinions. ..."

4. A woman named Devani from Portland sent this email: "I loved today's piece on returning to work after maternity leave. Of course, as a stay at home mom of 13 years and counting, I get the other side: when are you going back to work to do something worthwhile with your life? Sigh. Anyhow, thanks for speaking for women who enjoy both their work and their
parenthood. And kudos to you for never once trashing those who don't return to work. Of course, when you've made a life you enjoy and are at peace with, there's no need to put down anyone else's lifestyle. Your editorial shows that not only is that possible and probably more widespread han we'd think, but that it's time to think not of "moms' and "dads," but instead of "parents." Then a mother's return to work will stop exciting a more violent reaction than a father's absence from home. So thanks again for your piece, and I'm sure many other mothers and fathers appreciated reading it."

5. A woman named Sue from Lake Oswego wrote this email: "This is a note to thank you for your article in today's Oregonian about moms working. Our daughter-in-law works four days a week and because we love, respect and trust each other I get to take care of our grandkids. One is in full day kindergarten and the other is 20 months old. Our daughter-in-law is amazing and so is our son. Smiles and hugs and always kindness is their nature and, therefore, in the whole family. At Kindermusik there is a nanny, two grammas, moms and a mom and gramma and one new baby, a younger sibling to the older child. We all laugh and smile as the children "act like kids." How do parents find the right baby care? It seems the most difficult problem facing parents. ..."

Hi folks, happy Sunday. Phew, y'all don't waste any time getting back into it! Thanks as always for your comments.

Couple quick thoughts:

1. Trees 789: You're absolutely right. Happiness is not just a state of mind. It also has a lot to do with your personal and economic circumstances. If you must take a short maternity leave and put your baby in child care earlier, if your spouse is unable to take paternity leave, if you have limited work flexibility and no paid sick days, if you have a long commute, if you cannot find affordable/quality child care, you are going to have a LOT harder time being "happy" about the work-life balance (and your kids may struggle, too). This is a very important point with public policy dimensions, especially since so many parents simply *can't* give up the wages or health insurance to stay home full time.

2. Elmexijedi and others who see two parents working as an irresponsible/immoral choice:

I see it this way. Our family *could* survive on one income, but we would not be able to save for retirement or college. Also, relying on one job feels too risky, in an economy where layoffs are rampant and new jobs are few. Thus, we both work and we juggle schedules so that the kids are at home with at least one of us most of the time. So is it irresponsible /immoral/selfish? Well... I'd argue that kids can thrive (or not) in every kind of family situation. The key variables are: Do the kids feel loved and secure? Do they have consistent routines and lots of family time? Do they learn about values and discipline and kindness from their parents? These variables seem more important to me than Does Mom Earn a Paycheck. But then, I'm biased! ;)

To nocomment and lynne97030 -- The "hair" has been changed to "air" in the headline. That was my mistake; I'm embarrassed not to have seen it. Chalk it up to creating the blog post late Friday night for weekend publication. Thanks for the catch. -- Susan

Hi folks, it's Susan again. Here is another batch of reader feedback, fresh from the oven:

1. A reader named Victor left this voice mail: "I did read your editorial on the bond today. I don't know how they came up with the idea that the failure was because of the economy. Number one, the price was outrageous. $548 million? That is ridiculous. Number two was the deceptivity. This would only have helped nine schools, with a little left over for others. Number three, with Portland's history of taking our money, whether's it's water rate hikes or building lanes or fixing a building up or whatnot, it' s just reached the point of outrageousness. ... This bond shouldn't be considered or thought of. It should be shrunk to nothing. ... " (volume started to raise here.) "They're treating my house as an ATM machine. These people were selfish, rude, and they just threw this in our faces. Also, have you noticed, the day after this failed, they raised our water rates! So there's a lot more going on than that. Thank you."

2. A reader named Johnny from Portland sent this e-mail: "I had sent an e-mail to the PPS School Superintendent's office a month or so ago regarding my concerns about the bond issue. I pointed out I have two kids in PPS schools, and a wife who is a teacher..... so I have a lot of vested interest in the well being of PPS and Oregon public schools in general. In my letter I pointed out a way forward for PPS that I believe would be much more widely accepted and restore some faith in the PPS leadership at the same time."

Johnny continued: "My proposal was rather than try to do a massively huge project, that no-body actually knows how to run with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, start smaller. I would like to see PPS pick two schools, one a new build from ground up, and the other an extensive remodel. Do both projects, establish operating procedures, figure out what the "true" costs were compared to the quoted costs, and establish a system of checks and balances. Then with hard data in hand sit down figure out a realistic approach to the remaining buildings and then come to the taxpayers with both hard data and a realistic budget. Having grown up in a construction family I can tell you PPS will be shocked at how many hidden costs there are on remodel projects - once you start opening up walls and ceilings all bets and budgets go out the window. I am optimistically hoping that PPS might consider a more realistic approach to this entire process before they try to bring it back up for vote..... but I am not holding my breath on that kind of foresight."

3. John S. from Clackamas County left this voice mail: "I'm from Clackamas County and we voted this (Sellwood) bridge thing down. And there was this guy by the name of (Multco commissioner Jeff) Cogen. He made this typical liberal statement of, it's only a few pennies a day. Like we're too cheap if we don't vote for it. Would that it were the only thing that was going up, yeah, I'd go for it, but utility bills, taxes increases, fees go up on cable, they go up on myriad things. So it's not just a few pennies a day on one thing. These things go up constantly."

4. A woman who didn't leave her name left this voice mail: "So you think they should run another big bond issue, huh? Well, I want you to know I have apartments in Portland, Oregon. I am FED UP with the taxes that we pay. Our water bill is exorbitant. I have 300-square foot, 1-bedroom and studio apartments that I now pay $1,200 a year for 300 square feet. If that bond goes through, it's going to go up another $250 a month -- for a 300 sq-ft apt. Now, this is ridiculous. And you're advocating another bond issue for the schools again? It's all nothing but flim-flam! How can Portland people afford this? I'm jumping up and down, because I was going to put my rents up, but people can hardly afford what I'm charging: $475 a month! And they're always hurting; they can hardly pay at the end of the month. ... "

Hi folks, Susan here. Thanks for your comments. Here are a few voice mails and emails that came directly to me this morning:

1. A man who didn't leave his name left this voice mail: "Good morning and thank you for your piece. ... My little two cents on this whole thing is that our society has turned from one in which we value our children and the social contract to one that is more of an Ayn Randian, self-centered, 'me and my dog' sort of thing. It's easy for them to mark 'no' on their ballot."

2. A regular caller who doesn't leave her name left this message: "Portland's love for their schools never should have been unconditional. In the past, money has just been handed over without any real accountability, and without them really following through. Taxpayers need to stand up and make sure the accountability is there. I think finally voters may be doing that. I don't understand covered playgrounds right now. Do I understand, as a lifelong Oregonian, that it would be good to have them? Sure I do! But I'd also like a Mercedes! ... Let's get the schools earthquake-proofed. The number-one thing we should be concerned about is the actual, day-to-day safety of kids. ...Also, let's give the taxpayers an accounting of how much money has been thrown at Jefferson High School. These are two academies, each the size of a small, small academy. And we're throwing another $50 million at it?... " (etc)

3. A woman named Sarah K. from Northeast Portland left this voice mail: "Thank you for your column this morning. It hit the nail on the head. I hope our school board reads it, and our school administration, too."

4. A man named Lloyd L. left this voice mail: "It seems frustrating for The Oregonian to continue to fling athletic fields and, now, mobile technology carts, as if it had anything to do with the amount of the bond. You take out those things and your bond is about $542 million rather than $548 million. It sounds like you're reaching for something that's not there. ... It seems somewhat petty."

5. Gene from West Linn send this e-mail: "i can't even imagine how many letters you're getting on this subject... pro and con. however, i wanted to address one particular sentence in your piece this morning. that would be .. "...while enriching some big-donor private construction firms..." my question... would it be advantageous to the process to have you explain the other "private" group that stood to make as much, if not more money than the builders? that would be the firm(s) who would have been selected to handle the bond financing. this may be a sensitive subject, but i would think that the public has a right to know how this process works... it is not out of the realm of possibilty that fully 10% of the cash would go to the bond sales people... that would have been almost 50 million dollars.

6. A Portland parent named Mike left this email: "Thanks for the thoughtful analysis and the acknowledgment that this was close and still a partial success. I'm too tired now to seek out what the next strategy on this will be, and the 6 of 8 issue (from my perspective) is about to explode. I do hope though, when all the dust clears, we (those with still unconditional love for public education, if not PPS) will initiate thoughtful discussion on where to go next and really listen to what is said."

And here's a doozy:

7. A reader named Tom B. sent this email: "My wife and I appreciate your editorial in this morning's paper. It really touches on the main points of our thinking about the PPS bond measure. But there is one more thing I thought you may wish to know, and that is an erosion of our confidence in PPS leadership. We have been going through a very disappointing course of events at our neighborhood school with which we have had a close association for 8 years. The new principal, in our view and the view of many, is performing very poorly and has lost the confidence of much of the community. Many parents have raised concerns with the District and the response has been deeply disappointing. We have encountered empty reassurance, patronizing comments, and in one case an outright effort to intimidate a parent with unfounded allegations. What we have not found is a serious response that acknowledges appropriately the valid concerns of the community and manages to leave the parents confident that we have solid management at the District office that we can trust that the District will assess the situation well and put kids first. Indeed, many in our community have come to think that protecting the principal is the primary interest of the District and not the interests of the kids, the school, and the community."

Tom continued: "I wrote a long letter to the supervisor of the principals and the Assistant Superintendent, in which I not only shared my concerns, but also told the story of my community of 7 middle class families, largely educated in the public schools, strongly committed to public education, and deeply involved in our schools. These families have 14 children who all started their education in PPS schools. As our kids approach high school age, there has been a mass exodus and as we look forward, its increasingly clear that 12 of our 14 kids will end up leaving PPS schools by the time they matriculate in high school, often at significant hardship to the families involved. I received in return a perfunctory response about following procedures in the oversight of principals and not even the slightest reaction to my comments about how PPS has lost 6 of 7 involved, intact, and solidly middle class families who have every inclination to send their kids to public schools."

Tom wrapped up: "I voted no, not because the bond measure was too big or aimed at too many "luxuries" but because I have personally seen enough to loose confidence in the judgement and capability of district leadership. Its sad and I am deeply disappointed that our kids are leaving PPS and that we have come to distrust the quality of leadership within the district. I would be much happier if neither were true, but it is. I vote democratic, I live in Southeast Portland, I am educated in public schools, we are members of Stand for Children. We fit exactly the profile of a reliable pro-schools voter (and always have been), but they have lost me. There is story here that goes beyond the contents of the bond measure."